If the allegations are true, they would disturb me for a different reason. If I were smuggling drugs onto an airplane, I wouldn't be using a water bottle; not in this day and age. Didn't we go through several news cycles not too long ago showing how people could not bring water—or any other liquids for that matter—on a plane? Trying to do so would highlight the perpetrator's, er, sub-par intelligence.

I'd like to think that Vick is smart enough to know that a water bottle is just not the thing to hide contraband in; therefore, I wouldn't be surprised that the charge is bogus.

How typical of someone of Dinesh D'Souza's ilk that he cherry picks his time-lines and his facts. 9/11 started with Carter abandoning the Shah, eh? How convenient! Never mind that we (and our faithful poodles the Brits) were the ones that propped up the Shah's murderous regime in the first place, overthrowing a democratically elected prime minister (Mohammad Mossadegh) in the process over, you guessed it, oil. You don't think the Iranians would resent this? Not one little bit? But the Left wasn't responsible for this inconvenient little fact, perpetrated by the Dulles brothers under Eisehower's administration, so it is just left out. And of course there is no consideration of Israel's effects on Middle East politics and culture, or of any anger of resentment caused by our support of Israel. This is not scholarship, or "independent" evaluation. It is pure partisan tripe. Using Mr. D'Souza's standards, I could blame 9/11 on just about anyone I choose. Mr. D'Souza doesn't deserve the time of day from any fair minded person.

I served for the same reasons that Sen. Webb gave. I fervently hoped the same thing he hoped.

The President uttered some fine words last night. But they are just words.

"Ye shall know them by their fruits."

- Matthew 7:16

There was never a possibility that I would vote for W in 2000. But I thought that at worst we would have a relatively benign conservative at the helm for 4 years. Then I read Shrub, and I knew we were headed for trouble.

Thank you Molly, you were our eyes, our ears, and our conscience for a while. Your writing was a road map to the future. I can see now, but it will bee more difficult without you.

But Wishart does an effective job of demolishing the argument that cancer is some sort of allergic reaction to pollution. Death rates from cancer rose steadily in the past in large part because people were living longer and other diseases were being successfully treated.

This argument fails to explain the rise in cancer among children which, acording to Rachel Carson in Silent Spring (1962), was a medical rarity before the advent of modern pesticides. Other studies have also shown these rates to be rising.

Why would the supposed sophistication of these IEDs argue their Iranian origin? Aren't the Iraqis capable of manufacturing such weaponry themselves? The Sunni insurgency probably includes many former members of Saddam's military. They probably have the expertise. And if they are foreign weapons, wouldn't it be more likely that they were manufactured in the West? The Sunni insurgents are backed by our supposed allies, the Saudis and the Egyptians, not the Iranians. Most Sunni Arab nations possess large stocks of Western made weapons.

The bottom line is this: until hard evidence of Iranian origin is produced, we should treat these claims with extreme skepticism. This is, after all, the same US government that lied like a rug about WMDs in Iraq. They should have no credibility whatsoever. Journalists should stop acting as stenographers and at the very least acknowlege alternative explanations, find credible sources, and try to find out what is going on here. They owe it to their readers.

I'm not holding my breath.

What Glenn Reynolds advocates is a disgrace. We have no disagreement there. But what bothers me about pieces like yours is that they portray us as a nation of law, of pristine good intentions, which has been sullied by the disastrous administration of George W. Bush. In fact, the record is clear, even since the famous executive order banning assasinations. Whe have demonized anyone who disagrees with our positions, especially our economic positions. We claim to be acting in the name of freedom and democracy, but time and time again, it is "freedom" only if it conforms to our economic model, and "democracy" only if it produces a regime that is willing to be subservient to US interests.

All this has been true from the extirpation of the Seminoles, through to our murderous war against Phillipine independence, our dozens and dozens of illegal interventions in Latin America all in favor of our economic interests, culminating with the destruction on 9/11/73 of Chile's democracy. Continuing on, there is our continued irrational savaging of Cuba; there is our "defense" of Vietnam, wich involved the killing of some 2 million of the local inhabitants, for having the temerity of wishing to govern themselves in accordance with principles we did not agree with. And Grenada. WTF was that? And Panama. And so on. And now we are in Iraq, doing much the same, again mainly for reasons of economic self-interest. And now we appear to have singled out Iran for our attentions. Is it any wonder they may be scambling to make nukes?

Our fine words about principles and "values that have long defined this country" contrast spectacularly with our actions, not just in the last 6 years, but almost throughout our history. We may not see this, but people abroad do, which is why we are not well liked.